As pure support characters, I don't think you can really base an army around either one of them.

Both Saylind and Kelda have unique abilities that are difficult to leverage, and lend themselves well to combinatorial play. Building armies that highlight their abilities should be quite interesting, and would be much more challenging than building armies around, say, Raelin.

I think you could do a Kelda thread. (Have you not fought the Kelda/Charos Healing Circle of Doom TM?) I will have to think about Saylind though.

I consider the Kelda/Charos team to be a Charos-based army. Both Kelda and Saylind require others for their powers to work, and neither is any real use with squads. Sure, Saylind can summon a squad member - but one squad member seldom makes much of a difference. Gladiatrons, maybe, but they are kind of frail.

Saylind is really only useful to help a slow hero get somewhere faster, or get somewhere you need to fly to reach. With her power working only 60% of the time and her own durability being only decent, all too often you only get one summoning out of her before she dies. Not suitable material for basing an army around.

So what? Do you dismiss the Agent Carr and James Murphy threads (and the soon-to-be Concan thread) on the same criteria?

When a figure is worth 100 points or less, you're very likely going to have other figures that are worth more. That doesn't invalidate the goal of these threads, which is to find good uses for figures that don't see much play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimpy

I think you could do a Kelda thread. (Have you not fought the Kelda/Charos Healing Circle of Doom TM?) I will have to think about Saylind though.

Yeah, I like the Kelda/Charos/Raelin combo. For 500 pts, I'd go Kelda/Charos/Raelin/Kaemon Awa. Perhaps that's all Kelda is good for, but I'd like to see if there are other uses.

For Saylind, the d20 is what makes her really tricky. Her problem is knowing how many turn markers to give her. I'd combine her with Warriors of Ashra, Syvarris, and Jotun or Q9. That way you can give her multiple turn markers and still make her useful.

Do you dismiss the Agent Carr and James Murphy threads (and the soon-to-be Concan thread) on the same criteria?.

I pretty much do; I always viewed this section of scapers to be for true competitive armies, as in tournament worthy armies. Not to discount the "build an army around" threads, but about 25% of the units in this game are simply not worthy. If one chooses to build an army around them and take that army to a tournament, they will not win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LtBardolph

When a figure is worth 100 points or less, you're very likely going to have other figures that are worth more. That doesn't invalidate the goal of these threads, which is to find good uses for figures that don't see much play.

Maybe I never understood the goal of these threads. If the goal is to just present different army builds (not necessarily ones that are TRULY competitive) then that makes the effort more palatable. If the goal is to suggest you can build a tournament worthy army around certain units, I think that is not possible. Quite simply, there are some units in this game that have no place in a competitive tournament regardless of what you build around them.

I hope no one takes offense to this post. I am just saying that even if you put make-up on a pig and then put it in a dress, it is still a pig. Thus, I don't see the need to have a thread for every unit in the game to build a competitive army around.

I swear I have seen this discussion before. Oh yes, way back in the Mimring thread we discussed this very topic.

Originally, Truth posted a standard Mimring/ Orc Archers army. Euryon prompted him to be a bit more creative with his armies when Truth said the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by truth

Heh, I guess I should have read more than the title... but why? Is this just supposed to be for discussion purposes or do you want a winning army. Because that's it right up there.

That in turn led to the following posts by me and Euryon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimpy

This isn't for me. Rather, the point of these threads is to find underused units and find new and clever ways to use them. So far, I have seen several interesting strategies that would work and would also be fun to play. If anything, these threads will get people to play these heroes/squads a bit more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euryon

If you want a winning army, youíre not likely to pick mimring. This is all for a bit of fun, really. As has been discussed in this, and the predecessor thread (Shaolin Monks), its all about finding new and interesting combinations, as well as forcing us to put our thinking caps on when coming up with said combo's.

In short, these threads have a dual purpose. Foremost, they encourage us to look at new ways we can use units and create new combinations between units that were not in use before. Discussions that focus on an individual unitís role in the game often occur- and to that end, these threads could be in the Official Units Section. But they also closely examine the relationships existing between units; indeed, they often find new competitive combinations that went unseen before.
Granted, nobody is going to take the Shades or Monks to a tournament. However, discussing the feasibility of such a course gives these threads one more function: they provide knowledge and understanding on Heroscape tactics, and army composition. In many war games (as in the official proving grounds) generals are provided with the worst troops available. If one can succeed with the worst, they will never fail when they have the best under their command, the reasoning goes. Surely it is not the same here? If you spend time trying to figure out how to make bad units a viable opponent to the best (a goal that will not be reached with most threads) you gain and understanding of the game and the tactics inside it.

In many war games (as in the official proving grounds) generals are provided with the worst troops available. If one can succeed with the worst, they will never fail when they have the best under their command, the reasoning goes. Surely it is not the same here? If you spend time trying to figure out how to make bad units a viable opponent to the best (a goal that will not be reached with most threads) you gain and understanding of the game and the tactics inside it.

The Tarn Viking Warriors are considered a bad unit? It's a four character 3/4 unique squad for 50 points! They are slow but their Berserker Charge makes them dangerous.

I've never seen the Tarns take out their value in points. 4 move is absolutely awful for a unique non-bonding non-ranged squad, and the Berserker Charge is too inconsistent to risk wasting turn markers on these turkeys.

Compare them to the Marro Warriors. 2 more move, RANGE, and and the ability to clone themselves, for the same price! The extra move plus range makes it likely that the marros can take the high ground, where they'll be 3/4, too!

Honestly, it's just absurd that the RANGED squad gets 50% more movement than the MELEE squad. Berserker Charge 15 doesn't even come close to making up that gap.

I can't imagine a single scenario where I would draft the Tarns before the Marros.

Quote:

For the rest that I have played with, I would agree with you. Though I have had success with Deathwalker 9000.

Me, too, but for 140 points? That's the same price as eight minutemen...